1) HSBC is not considered to be the defendant simply because it is the trustee. Actually, according to the minibond programme prospectus, it's shown that issuer of the minibonds (i.e. Pacific International Finance Limited), is WHOLLY owned by HSBC Cayman, and its directors are also supplied by HSBC.
2) Mr. Daniels is therefore looking into the role and responsibility of HSBC in designing, creating and operating the product, which should not be called as "bonds" as they are highly complicated deriviatives and not suitable for retail investors.
3) Class action can be commenced whenever potential clients agree on it. HK investors are still meeting and discussing whether to launch it or not, and seeking for leading plaintiffs at the same time.
7 comments:
Dear Mr. Tan
Is it possible for Patrick Daniels, the leading counsel to look into Pinnacle's case for class action too?
Thanks for the advice
Regards
JC
From the message the funny impression is this could be a long drawn out affair
They even had to take time and efforts to establish whos the Defendent.
Basically WHO to sue?!
the guy above has trouble understanding english. patrick is saying hsbc IS a guilty party and will be sued.
we have all been fooled by hsbc, which kept saying it is just a trustee.
Can someone arrange Mr Patrick Daniels to visit Singapore?
We need Mr Daniels to help the minibond victims here.
HK Banks Club Together For Legal Aid On Minibonds December 18, 2008
Domestic banks in Hong Kong have announced that they will advance HKD100 million (USD12.9 million) in legal aid to defend investors in Lehman Brothers related Minibonds against possible U.S. legal actions. The Hong Kong Association of Banks’ Lehman task ...
the underlying message for those who can read clearly, actually implies the lawyers are STILl trying to find a target, so that they can convince the investors to plunk in to their war chest booty
meantime those same lawyers are ALSO trying to invite the investors to do so immediately DESPITE they havent quite pin down their target
The plot thickens - it now appears that HSBC is much more involved than that of acting as trustee for the local Minibond holders which it has always maintained.
If HSBC staff are also directors of the underlying entities which are supposed to pay to the Minibond investors in Singapore, how can HSBC perform both roles without putting themselves in a position of conflict?
Is this one of the key reasons why HSBC is taking so long in responding to investors adequately; as they have to take time in unravelling this internal mess?
This being the case, Minibond investors should also consider taking a class action suit against HSBC trustee on grounds of conflict of interests, breach of trust, acting prejudicial to the interests of the investors etc; if they have not been legally advised to do so already.
In fact, a class action suit against HSBC trustee would be more straightforward - as individual circumstances surrounding the investment process would be irrelevant, once it is established that the plaintiffs are all Minibond investors for which HSBC trustee owes a duty of care towards.
Post a Comment